latverian33 posted:

---

Google search, yahoo search, go to the book store get a film review guide. look up the reviews for the films in the original trilogy and ten look up the ones for the prequels.
You will find what I said is 100% true. Not opinon. Not assumption. But fact.

---

mandragora posted:

---

latverian33 posted:

---

Google search, yahoo search, go to the book store get a film review guide. look up the reviews for the films in the original trilogy and ten look up the ones for the prequels.
You will find what I said is 100% true. Not opinon. Not assumption. But fact.

---

I'm sorry, but your argumentation is simply inconsistent. Google search, yahoo search, film review guides all consist of samples. Either you call sampling foolish and distrust it in general (I'm still waiting for an explanation why in elections sample predictions are *regularily* highly accurate if the entire method is "foolish"), or you don't. Either a sample result is "100% true" and a "fact", or it's not. If drawing conclusions from samples in principle is a valid method, the question comes down to the quality of the sample and inference procedure. If it's not, then inferences from samples drawn by searching google and the like is equally as "foolish" as any other inferences from any other samples. You can't have it both ways, or just accept those samples that show the results which you like.

---

yodas_waiter posted:

---

In the end, the PT was crushed by the very monster it created. In 1977, Star Wars effectively created the summer blockbuster and was the leading franchise in that area the following years. But a lot happens in 20 years and by the time the PT was about to roll up, it had competition from franchises such as Harry Potter, Spiderman, Lord of the Rings and so on. What is interesting to speculate that if the OT was released in the same kind of cinematic enviroment like the PT, would've it have fared so well? It is a well known fact that Star Wars had no competition the whole summer of 1977

---

mandragora posted:

---

Sorry, I thought you were addressing someone else your post said "a man of science".

I think I already answered your question before - when I wrote that the RT sample is "too small". There are mathematical formula for determining sample size necessary, but they require knowing or estimating certain parameters of the total number of reviews. Bottom line, I can't say what the necessary sample size would be, but 15 reviews don't seem to be enough. Depending on what's known about the distribution of the reviews, and the error margin aimed at, I'd say that about 10 percent of all reviews should be a reasonable sample size.

---

Go-Mer-Tonic posted:

---

Yeah but it's the best we have to go on.

---

latverian33 posted:

---

I use my memory use. I remember Them getting MOSTLY good reviews.

---

latverian33 posted:

---

Ok to make this short and sweet. I was wrong. I guess sample testing can sometimes be acurate if you are smampling from a large enough base so that the margin of error is not so high that it present considerable doubt.


NOW will you answer my question?

Now will you PLEASE answer my question.

Do you honestly feel....that as a man of science and what appears to be an educated man. That 20-50 reviews out of heaven knows how many hundred is enough to make blanket statements and comments such as "the OT was not nearly as well liked back then by the critics as they are now"?

Do you? 20-50 out of an entire world of film critics.

---

latverian33 posted:

---

When it comes to election pollings. They do not just make one set of calls. They call each district. Comparing the two is apples and oranges.

They call hundreds and hundreds of people in different disctricts and then they crunch the data. That is why election polling is accurate.

That is different than taking 50 reviews out of 500-1000 or more and basing what you find on that FIFTY or less to be an accurate presentation.

---

latverian33 posted:

---

That is different than taking 50 reviews out of 500-1000 or more and basing what you find on that FIFTY or less to be an accurate presentation.

---

Jango10 posted:

---

latverian33 posted:

---

That is different than taking 50 reviews out of 500-1000 or more and basing what you find on that FIFTY or less to be an accurate presentation.

---

You really have changed your position, haven't you?

In regards to the PT, 50 reviews from the top critics are enough to say that it was generally negatively reviewed.

But, in regards to the OT, 50 reviews from the top critics are not enough to say that it wasn't originally reviewed as well as it is now.

Perfect definition of a hypocrite.

---

... posted:

---

Nonsense.
50 reviews out of 500 or more is not enough for ANY film. PT or OT.
If you think grabbing 50 reviews out of 1000 is enough to say that the over all majority of the entire 1000 is the same as the findings out of the 50 then you are a very uneducated person.
I am starting to think I am talking to a bunch of 5th graders.

---